Posts Tagged ‘California’

Arizona Enacts “Constitutional Carry” for Firearms

April 17, 2010



PAGE NINE — No. 84 — SPECIAL

Arizona Enacts “Constitutional Carry” for Firearms

by Alan Korwin, Author
Gun Laws of America

Get yours:

http://www.gunlaws.com/books.htm

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Full contact info at end
April 16, 2010

Arizona Enacts “Constitutional Carry” For Firearms

“Freedom To Carry” may replace so-called “Right To Carry” nationally

by Alan Korwin, Publisher
Bloomfield Press
http://www.bloomfieldpress.com

PHOENIX With governor Jan Brewer’s signature on the new “Constitutional Carry” firearm law today, Arizona becomes a beacon state for the nation on the gun-rights issue.

Arizonans, who have been free to carry firearms openly since statehood in 1912, will now be free to carry discreetly as well, without permits or red tape. Low-crime Vermont has had this freedom intact since Colonial days. The permit system remains in place but will no longer be required for discreet carry.

Alaska enacted a Constitutional Carry law in 2003, and Texas passed a limited version for traveling in 2007. Montana has enjoyed this freedom since 1991 on 99.4% of its land (outside city limits). These states experienced no increase in crime or accidents from the expanded freedom to discreetly bear arms in public. However, numerous dire warnings of “blood in the streets” preceded those new laws, but proved false. A list of circulating myths about the law, also known as “Freedom To Carry,” appears at the end of this article.

Arizona’s extremely strict laws on criminal misuse of firearms are unaffected by the new public freedoms, although a penalty for criminals got tougher. New language now makes concealed carry in the commission of a serious crime a felony. This led to support of the bill from police around the state. Formerly, that offense was a misdemeanor.

The intrusive government “permit” system in Arizona, introduced in 1994 with paperwork, approvals, fingerprinting, criminal-database listings, required classes, two mandatory tests, taxation and expiration dates to exercise “rights” is still available, but is now optional. Enormous police resources that could be going directly toward reducing crime have instead been diverted by the program into registering, regulating and tracking the innocent. About 3% of the public have signed up for the plastic-coated permission slips, though an estimated 50% of the state’s population keeps and bears arms. Official sources acknowledge they get millions of dollars per year from the permit taxes called “fees.”

“This new law brings rights restoration for the public, and an increase in freedom for law-abiding people,” said Dave Kopp, a lobbyist for the Arizona Citizens Defense League that requested and promoted the new law. “The people have the same right to bear arms discreetly that they have to bear arms openly, we are simply correcting statute to reflect that. If your jacket accidentally covers your sidearm, that no longer exposes you to criminal penalties.” A woman will be able to put a handgun in her handbag, go about her business, and not be subject to arrest.

The key changes in the law were made by repealing the infringing language in A.R.S. §13-3102, not by enacting new rules. A number of other changes were made in SB 1108, the bill that carried the Constitutional Carry law, and these will be described in plain English and posted by gunlaws.com next week. The new law will become effective 90 days after the legislature closes, or approximately in July.

“Opportunities for firearms training and gun safety can increase tremendously with this new law”, said Alan Korwin, author of The Arizona Gun Owner’s Guide, the book that describes the state’s gun laws in plain English. “Instead of focusing on a tiny percentage of the market willing to submit to the permit system, smart trainers can now offer Freedom To Carry classes to the general public. We’re anticipating Family Days At The Range and Constitutional Carry classes to spring up statewide,” he said. Removal of the $60 tax for the permit represents a significant discount, he notes.

“We sold The Arizona Gun Owner’s Guide by the truckload for five years before there was any CCW law, and expect to do the same now, though permit holders did become and will remain a segment of our business,” Korwin said. The Guide is now in its 24th edition, and a free update will be released shortly. The book’s publisher, Scottsdale-based Bloomfield Press, is the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country. http://www.gunlaws.com

The permission-slip system is unaffected and offers some advantages to citizens. Other states recognize the Arizona permit under “reciprocity,” which allows permit holders to carry firearms when in those states (currently 23 according to the Dept. of Public Safety).

In addition, since permittees are constantly monitored through the criminal databases DPS registers them in, they can shop at retail for firearms without undergoing separate FBI background checks each time they make a purchase. Also, some people just get a sense of security by having a plastic government “authorization” card in their wallets, and they enjoy showing it to friends.

Another CCW-permit benefit is the ability to carry in restaurants that serve alcohol, as long as the restaurant itself doesn’t ban possession and the person doesn’t drink while there. Whether those various denials of rights will be eliminated in future legislation, making the general public equal to permission-slip holders, was unknown at press time.

Previously only people with government-permission cards in their possession could bear arms in certain parks. That ban was eliminated by a separate bill this year, which now makes permit holders and the general public equal.

According to MSNBC, some six million Americans have permits and carry discreetly. The fears of shootouts at stop lights, bullets for slow waiters and Wild West-style belligerence have been repeatedly proven false and dispelled as hoplophobic fantasies. Statistics have shown that crime uniformly drops when states reduce infringements on the right of law-abiding people to keep and bear arms. “Society is safer when criminals don’t know who’s armed,” according to the California-based civil rights group, crpa.org.

Sales of small easily carried sidearms and accessories are expected to increase with passage of the new law.

COMMON MYTHS ABOUT CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY

Q: Why is the CCW permit being eliminated?

A: The CCW permit is not being eliminated — that appears to have been misinformation designed to scuttle the bill. The permit system remains completely unaffected by Freedom To Carry. The permit, its advantages, the training, reciprocity schemes, the classes, fees and taxes are unchanged. That all remains voluntary as it always has been. Anyone who meets that law’s requirements can apply. Shame on the “news” media that has repeatedly said otherwise.

Q: What’s the difference between Constitutional Carry and Freedom To Carry?

A: There’s no difference, they’re just two names for the same thing. Constitutional Carry, the more formal term, comes from following the Arizona Constitution’s provision that “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired…”. Freedom To Carry (no government interference with the right to arms) refers to the next step after so-called Right To Carry (massive government interference with the right to arms).

Q: If people can just carry guns, won’t crime and gun problems skyrocket?

A: Half of Arizonans keep and bear arms now, without any of the CCW red tape and government supervision, and without any “skyrocketing” problems. Removing the requirement to only carry openly doesn’t change who people are or how they act, it just restores their rights. Restoration of rights and becoming mentally unhinged are not related — but the same arguments have been made everywhere CCW programs passed.

It’s commonly recognized that some folks, especially people who lean left politically, do seem to equate discreetly bearing arms and becoming unglued. Decades of experience however provide no evidence of any such behavior. Those concerns have been repeatedly proven false and often turn out to be irrational fear mongering. Government permission slips for the exercise of rights have not turned people into homicidal maniacs. Restoring the right to discreetly bear arms will not change people into something they are not, and brings the state into proper compliance with its Constitution.

Q: Can anyone carry a gun?

A: Anyone who could legally carry a gun previously can legally carry under this law, no more, no less. “Prohibited possessors” — criminals, illegal aliens and others forbidden to carry arms remain banned as always. The main change is that now a woman can put a handgun in her handbag without being subject to arrest for carrying discreetly without a government permission slip (and a man has equal right to carry a gun in any discreet manner — under a sport coat or shirt, in a pocket or pants holster, fanny pack, attaché case, etc.)

Q: Training is a good thing, why was it eliminated?

A: Training is indeed a good thing and it is not eliminated. Anyone can and should take as much training as they want, which is voluntary. What has changed is that you are no longer forced to take government-mandated classes, registration and taxes before you can exercise your right to carry discreetly. This is the same formula working in Arizona since statehood for open carry (which includes concealed carry in your home, business, land, vehicle (with some minor conditions), and in a visible scabbard or case designed for carrying weapons, or in luggage. Now that the half of the public that bears arms can do so discreetly, many experts expect statewide gun training to flourish.

Q: Won’t people shoot each other if they’re not required to take the training?

A: Twelve states currently issue CCW permits without a training requirement and they’re doing just fine. Half of Arizonans exercise their right to arms without government-demanded training and they’re doing just fine. The idea that you’re only safe if government requires training is statist, foolish and incorrect. That said, responsible people should get education and training for firearms—and swimming, machine tools, medical care, raising children, being married, owning a home, preparing food, writing articles, etc., without government mandates.

If government could require training for everything that has risk, your freedom would be evaporated and your government would be out of line. Government has no legitimate delegated authority in this country to be your nanny like that, or to require anything beyond the specific, limited delegated powers given to it in the Constitution and subsequent valid legislation. The fact that government has in many cases abandoned those constraints is part of why the Tea Party movement has gained such ground and, in some cases, driven the public out into the streets with pitchforks (figuratively).

Currently, 11 states issue carry permits without training and they’re fine (AL, DE, GA, ID, IN, MD, MS, NH, PA, SD, WA). Because Arizona recognizes all other permits, many of our snowbirds have been carrying under those permits, without problems.

Q: Why are children of any age going to be allowed to carry guns to school?

A: That is total nonsense. No such thing occurs. The bill has no effect on children. That appears to be part of a misinformation campaign designed to scuttle the bill. There is no change as to who has the right to keep and bear arms. School grounds are unaffected by the law. That question is typical of similar lies and disinformation used to defeat and mislead the public about many good bills that seek to restore our civil rights. It’s almost as bad as the lies told about blacks during the civil rights era of the 1960s. Almost.

Q: Will other states imitate Arizona and enact Constitutional Carry?

A: Many people hope so, and it has the backing of the gun-rights groups.

AFTERWORD: INSIDER INFORMATION:

There is one reason and one reason only why this got done —
The Arizona Citizens Defense League.

That small handful of guys running this group, the two full-time volunteer lobbyists Dave Kopp and John Wentling, and the thousands of members who supported the effort with their tiny membership dues are exactly and precisely why our rights have expanded.

It was a deliberate, conscientious, focused and tireless effort from what must be a candidate for the best pro-rights organization in the nation. Get your friends to join, send a donation or buy a t-shirt or hat, attend the meetings, and in your little way, make a difference and preserve our rights. http://www.azcdl.org

One other tidbit — the NRA was rightfully nervous about this whole Freedom To Carry, permitless, no training, no red tape expansion of our rights. They dragged their feet at first, that’s putting it mildly, and I can’t say I blame them. An awful lot was on the line.

They wanted to be prudent. Limit exposure and risk. They have all their trainers to think about and that revenue stream. The chance of falling flat on your face in total embarrassment is a serious concern. The ease with which the antis might cast us as dangerous gun-toting (their media’s favorite slur) nuts is a real issue.

I personally debated hard with some of the top brass, and to their credit, they finally agreed not to fight the effort in Arizona, and eventually saw the light and got on board. Some gun owners like to pick on the NRA, but the NRA is going to be at the forefront of this battle. The Constitutional Carry issue does make sense, for them and for us. It will be a winner in some states, maybe yours, and does advance everything for which NRA members stand.

Yes, some of those members, steeped in darkness, or hooked on the government-permit feed trough, believe that red-tapeless carry is a bad idea. They crave government supervision. They want that permission slip in their wallet. They’ll learn, and come around. And continue to get fine training from NRA certified and other trainers because it’s the right thing to do, not because the government commands it. Appleseed is doing a phenomenal job in the training arena too, check them out while you’re at it. http://www.appleseedinfo.org

P.S. ORAL ARGUMENT ANALYZED

I have finally completed the long-awaited analysis of the oral arguments in the McDonald v. Chicago gun-ban case. Both attorneys took a whupping, but I think our rights came out on top. Justices showed their true colors (like Breyer comparing free speech to death by gun). It’s fascinating if you’re into this sort of thing, and way easier than plodding through the transcripts. Sorry it took so long.
http://www.gunlaws.com/McDonald_v_Chicago_Orals.htm

NOTE: On my website at last — The Woman’s Page
http://www.gunlaws.com/books15Women.htm

All our books, DVDs and other goods are listed here by category and alphabetically
http://www.gunlaws.com/books.htm

Contact Felicity Bower or
Alan Korwin
Bloomfield Press
“We publish the gun laws.”
4848 E. Cactus, #505-440
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
602-996-4020 Phone
602-494-0679 Fax
1-800-707-4020 Orders
http://www.gunlaws.com
alan@gunlaws.com
Call, write, fax or click for free full-color catalog
(This is our address and info as of Jan. 1, 2007)

If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you’re reading this in English, thank a veteran.

“No one could make a greater mistake than he who did nothing
because he could do only a little.”
–Edmund Burke

Note to my regular readers:

It’s pretty typical to frame news like this by saying: “Arizonans are now allowed to carry firearms discreetly without a permit” but that’s just not right. That implies someone or something has legitimate authority to “allow” you to exercise your rights. You should start watching that deceptive word “allow” very carefully.

This press release is carefully framed to say: “Arizonans are now free to carry firearms discreetly without a permit,” because this is the American truth of the matter. Also note the use of “discreetly,” which is a civilized norm, instead of the media’s preferred “concealed,” which implies you’re doing something wrong and have something to hide. For more on good word usage in the protection of freedom, see my Politically Corrected Glossary, http://www.gunlaws.com/politicallycorrect.htm.]

Arizonans have posted valuable observations on the bill; unfortunately I didn’t preserve attribution in all cases:

And, on that note, I will chime in.  12 states have no training requirements for CCW permits [he includes NY, which is true in some counties].  Two of those are Indiana and Pennsylvania which have issued about 1,000,000 permits, compared to Arizona’s miniscule 150,000.  A few years back, NRA supplied me with their permit holder misuse statistics and they were lower (yes, lower) than Arizona’s.  Imagine that.  Since Arizona recognizes all permits from all states, that means that many of our yearly snowbirds are legally carrying concealed weapons from states that don’t require training.

Very well said. If anyone thinks the minimum training received during a CCW class sends the student out prepared to deal with the responsibility associated with carrying or for that matter owning a firearm. They are sadly mistaken. There are some CCW holders who have never fired their firearm since the class. Yet there are non-permittees that shoot weekly. You can’t legislate common sense or morals. It’s all about the freedom to choose to do the right thing. Don’t get me wrong — all gun owners should train and practice regularly. But not because the state says they have to. -Michael B Wixom Sent from my Blackberry

You ask why we would not make training mandatory? My answer is that it is a choice between liberty and some (mis)perceived concept of ‘safety’ — and we all know Benjamin Franklin’s opinion on that.

‘Training’ — to whatever level or extent — should be a matter of individual accountability, not government coercion. If an individual fails to ‘understand’ his firearm, or the conditions and situations in which to deploy it, and winds up a statistic, I consider it another splash of chlorine in the shallow end of the gene pool — no matter how noble the act might have been, the lack of personal responsibility is separate from the context.

On a more ‘practical’ note, what the state giveth, the state may easily taketh away — with interest. Once ‘government’ is satisfied it can mandate ‘training requirements’, what may they mandate next? Caliber? Number? Days on which one may carry? Arbitrary and capricious ‘conditions’ that must be met?

Note that I strongly advocate the individual do all in his power to obtain the best instruction and ‘training’ possible, and practice to whatever extent practical — ‘the heaviest thing about carrying a firearm is the responsibility’ — not because there is any government ‘mandate’ beyond the barely adequate 8 hours, but because I have accepted the responsibility that comes with the choice to go armed. Tangentially, the willingness of more citizens to accept the philosophy of ‘personal accountability’ is the key to restoring the republic, another of my ‘personal interests’. -Duke Schecter

Alan Korwin
Bloomfield Press
“We publish the gun laws.”
4848 E. Cactus, #505-440
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
602-996-4020 Phone
602-494-0679 Fax
1-800-707-4020 Orders
http://www.gunlaws.com
alan@gunlaws.com
Call, write, fax or click for our  f r e e full-color catalog

If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you’re reading this in English, thank a veteran.

“No one could make a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little.” –Edmund Burke

Guns Save Lives
Guns Stop Crime
Guns Are Why America Is Still F r e e

8 MORE THINGS A BURGLAR WON’T TELL YOU

February 22, 2010

1. Sometimes, I carry a clipboard. Sometimes, I dress like a lawn guy and carry a rake. I do my best to never, ever look like a crook.

2. The two things I hate most: loud dogs and nosy neighbors.

3. I’ll break a window to get in, even if it makes a little noise. If your neighbor hears one loud sound, he’ll stop what he’s doing and wait to hear it again. If he doesn’t hear it again, he’ll just go back to what he was doing. It’s human nature.

4. I’m not complaining, but why would you pay all that money for a fancy alarm system and leave your house without setting it?

5. I love looking in your windows. I’m looking for signs that you’re home, and for flat screen TVs or gaming systems I’d like. I’ll drive or walk through your neighborhood at night, before you close the blinds, just to pick my targets.

6. Avoid announcing your vacation on your Facebook page. It’s easier than you think to look up your address.

7. To you, leaving that window open just a crack during the day is a way to let in a little fresh air. To me, it’s an invitation.

8. If you don’t answer when I knock, I try the door. Occasionally, I hit the jackpot and walk right in.

Sources: Convicted burglars in North Carolina, Oregon, California, and Kentucky; security consultant Chris McGoey, who runs http://www.crimedoctor.com/ and Richard T. Wright, a criminology professor at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, who interviewed 105 burglars for his book Burglars on the Job.

———–

Think carefully about your surroundings — it’s a given that the burglars are!

I will be posting additional security articles in the future to help in your quest to protect your home, business and family.

If you like this article, tell your friends, retweet it on Twitter, or consider subscribing to my blog. Thanks to all those who are returning readers and to those that leave nice comments.  Lockdoc1

The Lesson of an Affirmative Action President

January 29, 2010

The Lesson of an Affirmative Action President

By James Lewis

You don’t pick brain surgeons by the color of their skin. You pick them by competence only. Same thing with airplane pilots. But we have allowed the profoundly irrational liberal media to persuade the American public that we are supposed to pick a U.S. president by affirmative action. Obama was elected to universal Hosannas because he is black. It wasn’t a secret. That’s why the Left around the world went into ecstasies when Obama ran and got elected.

We’ve been using affirmative action to hire and promote teachers and cops and to popularize movie stars and media heroes. We’ve had a generation of affirmative action agitprop, 24/7/365. Hillary Clinton was going to dictate racial and gender preferences for medical school admissions under HillaryCare. You can bet that reverse-racism is all over the 2,200 pages of ObamaCare. It’s reverse-racism forever!

In America today, competence is suspect, and incompetence gets all the attention. Yet competence is what keeps us alive.

Affirmative action was allowed by the Supreme Court as a temporary exception to the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution until blacks had the same opportunities others did. It has now been about forty years, and the goal posts have just moved farther and farther Left. Today it’s not just blacks — it’s women, homosexuals, and illegal aliens. And it’s no longer equality of opportunity, but equality of outcome, which was the goal of Communism for seventy years in the Soviet Union, until the whole Soviet Empire crumbled as a result.

In the Soviet Union, everything was politicized. Incompetent people ran agriculture along Stalinist lines. Everything turned into a lie, and lies accelerated as they propagated through the system, in exactly the way the Climategate lies get worse and worse as they get passed along by politically correct bureaucrats and scientists. When political loyalty controls the outcomes, honesty and competence are driven out at every level of society. Nobody can point to Obama’s anti-terrorist policies and say that’s wildly incompetent — without fearing they will be accused of racism.

From a temporary policy to give black people a better chance in life, we have now arrived at a Marxist goal of universal equality for everyone — except for white, male, heterosexual, and excessively normal people. We have reversed racism, but guess what? Reverse-racism is still racism. As a direct result, corruption now pervades the big cities and Washington, D.C. That’s because race, gender, and victim status have taken over as the criteria for all the benefits society has to offer.

Obama’s election to the nation’s most powerful office is the direct outcome of racial reasoning. It was race that put him over the top against Hillary, in a thousand media endorsements, and finally, against John McCain, who was old, male and white. Three strikes against McCain, who for all his faults is vastly more experienced and knowledgeable than the Obamessiah.

Meanwhile, blacks are still suffering from the pervasive social pathology of the inner city — almost all self-inflicted, with the help of the welfare state. Europe shows exactly the same results, except that the victims of welfarism aren’t black, but mostly white and Muslim immigrants. American blacks today are more bitter and more racially enraged than ever before, after forty years of affirmative action. Affirmative action hasn’t helped women, who now have to work two jobs, one at home and one for income, especially because so many men have walked away from their families under liberal cultural values. Reverse-racism has actively hurt generations of children, who have grown up in broken homes as a direct result of pernicious social policies which Obama has actually tried to make worse. One of the first things he did was to reverse Clinton’s welfare reform so that social pathology in the black community can spread its poison even wider and deeper. Obama isn’t good for black people — but then, blacks consistently vote for those who do them the most harm.

Reverse-racism has hurt Asian-Americans, who don’t usually count as disadvantaged non-whites, but who by dint of talent and hard work are now among the largest ethnic groups in many colleges and universities and a majority at Berkeley and UCLA, where race engineering is banned by a California law passed by voters over the objection of the political establishment.

Any time a Muslim tries to explode a bomb on an airplane, Obama sticks his nose in the air and pretends he doesn’t know what’s up. But he knows, he knows. The next time an airplane blows up in flight, Obama will be history, but he will never blame himself for his own truly stupid and perverse policies. On the contrary, Obama will be around for the next forty years blaming White America for his own folly.

We’ve now been taught by the media to hire and elect people by the color of their skin, or by gender, or by sexual preferences — including, in the case of Kevin Jenkins, their ability to peddle gay sexuality to kids and teachers for the Queering of the Elementary Schools.

Is it any surprise that a president who ran as the historic first black — that is, on affirmative action grounds — is not just incompetent, but perverse, so that we deliberately don’t check the passenger lists for young Muslim males who were brought up in radicalized cultures, even if they are already in the terror database, even if they buy a one-way ticket with untraceable cash and don’t check any luggage at all on their one-way flights from Nigeria to Detroit?

Obama’s anti-terror policies are not just incompetent. They are suicidal.

They are exactly like all the other social policies that are supposed to help the poor, the disadvantaged, the black, females, homosexuals — all of which invariably end up punishing and degrading the very people they are supposed to help. Who do you suppose is in the teachers’ unions that are keeping black kids from escaping the inner city ghettos? Yes, it’s black and liberal teachers. Who do you suppose is actively importing Muslim radicals into Europe and the United States? Who do you suppose has done more to spread HIV? Yes, it is the very Leftists who are always telling us how much compassion they feel for those very people.

The vote in 2008 was even crazier than picking your brain surgeon by the color of his skin. If the knife slips in the surgeon’s hand, you might die, but the nation as a whole doesn’t. But if the president has a nervous breakdown in the Oval Office, the whole world is at risk. It’s a mad, mad, mad idea to elect people on the basis of race or gender.

We have been so PC-whipped as a nation that Obama’s election as a black man — not as a competent black man, not as an experienced and well-qualified black man — was celebrated by liberals and Leftists around the world. It is the victory of brain-dead ideology over common sense. The guy in the White House today is potentially the most dangerous, mentally fixated, and irresponsible demagogue we have ever known. Those wacky ideas are once again on the rise, not just in the schools and colleges, but even at the very centers of power. The election of Obama was by far the screwiest thing American voters have ever done. It throws doubt on the whole American experiment, because we have inflicted this disaster on ourselves.

The lesson of the Obama presidency is exactly the opposite of what our stuck-on-stupid media are telling us. It is that we must never, ever hire, promote, or elect somebody to a position of power and responsibility merely because of his race. Abraham Lincoln would not have been surprised. Neither would Martin Luther King, Jr. Even the editors of the New York Times choose schools for their kids not by race, but by educational competence. Somehow the American people have forgotten their common sense while Obama was rifling their wallets.

The captain is drunk in the deckhouse, and the ship of state is heading for the rocks. Our enemies are trying to take advantage of our failure to elect even sensible leadership. If you don’t think al-Qaeda, Ahmadinejad, and the Russians will try to screw us royally under this perverse and incompetent leadership, just wait a month or two. The Chinese have taken the measure of this guy. So have the other jackals prowling around the small campfire of civilization. They know he’s a pushover, and they will act accordingly. The only question is how badly we’ll get burned.

The Left has advocated suicidal policies, and now they have found their way to power. But ultimately this is a failure of the American people, of our pathetic excuse for a media, and of the anti-American hatred that pervades the Left.

Yes, God protects orphans, widows, and the United States. But you can rely on pure dumb luck for only a little while before the ship of state comes to grief on that unforgiving iceberg.

Link to original article –

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/the_lesson_of_an_affirmative_a.html

Comments posted to original article – Worth reading. Some of these people have some great insight and thoughts on this…

http://comments.americanthinker.com/read/42323/527170.html

The Pope visits Alaska – humor

January 27, 2010

The Pope took a couple of days off to visit the rugged mountains of Alaska for some sightseeing. He was cruising along the campground in the Pope Mobile when there was a frantic commotion just at the edge of the woods.

A helpless Democrat, wearing sandals, shorts, a ‘Vote for Obama’ hat and a ‘Save the Trees’ t-shirt, was screaming while struggling frantically and thrashing around trying to free himself from the grasp of a 10-foot grizzly bear.

As the Pope watched in horror, a group of Republican loggers with ‘Go Sarah’ t-Shirts came racing up. One quickly fired a 44 magnum into the bear’s chest. The other two reached up and pulled the bleeding, semiconscious Democrat from the bear’s grasp. Then using long clubs, the three loggers finished off the bear and two of them threw it onto the bed of their truck while the other tenderly placed the injured Democrat in the back seat.

As they prepared to leave, the Pope summoned them to come over. ‘I give you my blessing for your brave actions!’ he told them. ‘I heard there was a bitter hatred between Republican loggers and Democratic environmental activists, but now I’ve seen with my own eyes that this is not true.’

As the Pope drove off, one logger asked his buddies ‘Who was that guy?’

‘It was the Pope,’ another replied. ‘He’s in direct contact with Heaven and has access to all wisdom.’

‘Well,’ the logger said, ‘he may have access to all wisdom, but he doesn’t know squat about bear hunting! By the way, is the bait still alive, or do we need to go back to California and get another one?

A California Teacher Talks about Illegal Aliens

January 17, 2010

This should make everyone think, be you Democrat, Republican or Independent…

This English teacher has phrased it the best I’ve seen yet “Tomatoes and Cheap Labor.”

CHEAP TOMATOES?

“As you listen to the news about the student protests over illegal immigration, there are some things that you should be aware of:

I am in charge of the English-as-a-second-language department at a large southern California high school, which is, designated a Title 1 school, meaning that its students average lower socioeconomic and income levels.

Most of the schools you are hearing about, South Gate High, Bell Gardens, Huntington Park, etc., where these students are protesting, are also Title 1 schools.

Title 1 schools are on the free breakfast and free lunch program. When I say free breakfast, I’m not talking a glass of milk and roll — but a full breakfast and cereal bar with fruits and juices that would make a Marriott proud. The waste of this food is monumental, with trays and trays of it being dumped in the trash uneaten. (OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK)

I estimate that well over 50% of these students are obese or at least moderately overweight. About 75% or more DO have cell phones. The school also provides day care centers for the unwed teenage pregnant girls (some as young as 13) so they can attend class without the inconvenience of having to arrange for babysitters or having family watch their kids. (OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK)

I was ordered to spend $700,000 on my department or risk losing funding for the upcoming year even though there was little need for anything; my budget was already substantial. I ended up buying new computers for the computer learning center, half of which, one month later, have been carved with graffiti by the appreciative students who obviously feel humbled and grateful to have a free education in America. (OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK)

I have had to intervene several times for young and substitute teachers whose classes consist of many illegal immigrant students here in the country less then 3 months who raised so much hell with the female teachers, calling them “Putas”, whores and throwing things that the teachers were in tears.

Free medical, free education, free food, daycare etc., etc, etc. Is it any wonder they feel entitled to not only be in this country but to demand rights, privileges and entitlements?

To those who want to point out how much these illegal immigrants contribute to our society because they LIKE their gardener and housekeeper and they like to pay less for tomatoes: spend some time in the real world of illegal immigration and see the TRUE costs.

Higher insurance, medical facilities closing, higher medical costs, more crime, lower standards of education in our schools, overcrowding, new diseases etc., etc, etc. For me, I’ll pay more for tomatoes.

We need to wake up. The guest worker program will be a disaster because we won’t have the guts to enforce it. Does anyone in their right mind really think they will voluntarily leave and return?

It does, however, have everything to do with culture: A third-world culture that does not value education, that accepts children getting pregnant and dropping out of school by 15 and that refuses to assimilate, and an American culture that has become so weak and worried about “politically correctness” that we don’t have the will to do anything about it.

If this makes your blood boil, as it did mine, forward this to everyone you know.

CHEAP LABOR? Isn’t that what the whole immigration issue is about?

Business doesn’t want to pay a decent wage.

Consumers don’t want expensive produce.

Government will tell you Americans don’t want the jobs.

But the bottom line is cheap labor. The phrase “cheap labor” is a myth, a farce, and a lie. There is no such thing as “cheap labor.”

Take, for example, an illegal alien with a wife and five children. He takes a job for $5.00 or 6.00/hour. At that wage, with six dependents, he pays no income tax, yet at the end of the year, if he files an Income Tax Return, he gets an “earned income credit” of up to $3,200 free.

He qualifies for Section 8 housing and subsidized rent.

He qualifies for food stamps.

He qualifies for free (no deductible, no co-pay) health care.

His children get free breakfasts and lunches at school.

He requires bilingual teachers and books.

He qualifies for relief from high energy bills.

If they are or become, aged, blind or disabled, they qualify for SSI. Once qualified for SSI they can qualify for Medicare. All of this is at (our) taxpayer’s expense.

He doesn’t worry about car insurance, life insurance, or homeowners insurance.

Taxpayers provide Spanish language signs, bulletins and printed material.

He and his family receive the equivalent of $20.00 to $30.00/hour in benefits.

Working Americans are lucky to have $5.00 or $6.00/hour left after paying their bills and his.

The American taxpayers also pay for increased crime, graffiti and trash clean up.

Cheap labor? YEAH RIGHT! Wake up people!

THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS WE SHOULD BE ADDRESSING TO THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES FOR EITHER PARTY.  ‘AND WHEN THEY LIE TO US AND DON’T DO AS THEY SAY, WE SHOULD REPLACE THEM AT ONCE!’

THIS HAS GOT TO BE PASSED ALONG TO AS MANY AS POSSIBLE OR WE WILL ALL GO DOWN THE DRAIN BECAUSE A FEW DON’T CARE.

How Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings from Mexico

January 4, 2010

By John Dillin

George W. Bush wasn’t the first Republican president to face a full-blown immigration crisis on the US-Mexican border.

Fifty-three years ago, when newly elected Dwight Eisenhower moved into the White House, America’s southern frontier was as porous as a spaghetti sieve. As many as 3 million illegal migrants had walked and waded northward over a period of several years for jobs in California, Arizona, Texas, and points beyond.

President Eisenhower cut off this illegal traffic. He did it quickly and decisively with only 1,075 United States Border Patrol agents less than one-tenth of today’s force. The operation is still highly praised among veterans of the Border Patrol.

Although there is little to no record of this operation in Ike’s official papers, one piece of historic evidence indicates how he felt. In 1951, Ike wrote a letter to Sen. William Fulbright (D) of Arkansas. The senator had just proposed that a special commission be created by Congress to examine unethical conduct by government officials who accepted gifts and favors in exchange for special treatment of private individuals.

General Eisenhower, who was gearing up for his run for the presidency, said “Amen” to Senator Fulbright’s proposal. He then quoted a report in The New York Times, highlighting one paragraph that said: “The rise in illegal border-crossing by Mexican ‘wetbacks’ to a current rate of more than 1,000,000 cases a year has been accompanied by a curious relaxation in ethical standards extending all the way from the farmer-exploiters of this contraband labor to the highest levels of the Federal Government.”

Years later, the late Herbert Brownell Jr., Eisenhower’s first attorney general, said in an interview with this writer that the president had a sense of urgency about illegal immigration when he took office.

America “was faced with a breakdown in law enforcement on a very large scale,” Mr. Brownell said. “When I say large scale, I mean hundreds of thousands were coming in from Mexico [every year] without restraint.”

Although an on-and-off guest-worker program for Mexicans was operating at the time, farmers and ranchers in the Southwest had become dependent on an additional low-cost, docile, illegal labor force of up to 3 million, mostly Mexican, laborers.

According to the Handbook of Texas Online, published by the University of Texas at Austin and the Texas State Historical Association, this illegal workforce had a severe impact on the wages of ordinary working Americans. The Handbook Online reports that a study by the President’s Commission on Migratory Labor in Texas in 1950 found that cotton growers in the Rio Grande Valley, where most illegal aliens in Texas worked, paid wages that were “approximately half” the farm wages paid elsewhere in the state.

Profits from illegal labor led to the kind of corruption that apparently worried Eisenhower. Joseph White, a retired 21-year veteran of the Border Patrol, says that in the early 1950s, some senior US officials overseeing immigration enforcement “had friends among the ranchers,” and agents “did not dare” arrest their illegal workers.

Walt Edwards, who joined the Border Patrol in 1951, tells a similar story. He says: “When we caught illegal aliens on farms and ranches, the farmer or rancher would often call and complain [to officials in El Paso]. And depending on how politically connected they were, there would be political intervention. That is how we got into this mess we are in now.”

Bill Chambers, who worked for a combined 33 years for the Border Patrol and the then-called US Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), says politically powerful people are still fueling the flow of illegals.

During the 1950s, however, this “Good Old Boy” system changed under Eisenhower if only for about 10 years.

In 1954, Ike appointed retired Gen. Joseph “Jumpin’ Joe” Swing, a former West Point classmate and veteran of the 101st Airborne, as the new INS commissioner.

Influential politicians, including Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D) of Texas and Sen. Pat McCarran (D) of Nevada, favored open borders, and were dead set against strong border enforcement, Brownell said. But General Swing’s close connections to the president shielded him and the Border Patrol from meddling by powerful political and corporate interests.

One of Swing’s first decisive acts was to transfer certain entrenched immigration officials out of the border area to other regions of the country where their political connections with people such as Senator Johnson would have no effect.

Then on June 17, 1954, what was called “Operation Wetback” began. Because political resistance was lower in California and Arizona, the roundup of aliens began there. Some 750 agents swept northward through agricultural areas with a goal of 1,000 apprehensions a day. By the end of July, over 50,000 aliens were caught in the two states. Another 488,000, fearing arrest, had fled the country.

By mid-July, the crackdown extended northward into Utah, Nevada, and Idaho, and eastward to Texas.

By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and an estimated 500,000 to 700,000 illegals had left the Lone Star State voluntarily.

Unlike today, Mexicans caught in the roundup were not simply released at the border, where they could easily reenter the US. To discourage their return, Swing arranged for buses and trains to take many aliens deep within Mexico before being set free.

Tens of thousands more were put aboard two hired ships, the Emancipation and the Mercurio. The ships ferried the aliens from Port Isabel, Texas, to Vera Cruz, Mexico, more than 500 miles south.

The sea voyage was “a rough trip, and they did not like it,” says Don Coppock, who worked his way up from Border Patrolman in 1941 to eventually head the Border Patrol from 1960 to 1973.

Mr. Coppock says he “cannot understand why [President] Bush let [today’s] problem get away from him as it has. I guess it was his compassionate conservatism, and trying to please [Mexican President] Vincente Fox.”

There are now said to be 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens in the US.  Of the Mexicans who live here, an estimated 85 percent are here illegally.

Patrol vets offer tips on curbing illegal immigration. One day in 1954, Border Patrol agent Walt Edwards picked up a newspaper in Big Spring, Texas, and saw some startling news. The government was launching an all-out drive to oust illegal aliens from the United States.

The orders came straight from the top, where the new president, Dwight Eisenhower, had put a former West Point classmate, Gen. Joseph Swing, in charge of immigration enforcement.

General Swing’s fast-moving campaign soon secured America’s borders an accomplishment no other president has since equaled. Illegal migration had dropped 95 percent by the late 1950s.

Several retired Border Patrol agents who took part in the 1950s effort, including Mr. Edwards, say much of what Swing did could be repeated today.

“Some say we cannot send 12 million illegals now in the United States back where they came from. Of course we can!” Edwards says.

Donald Coppock, who headed the Patrol from 1960 to 1973, says that if Swing and Ike were still running immigration enforcement, “they’d be on top of this in a minute.”

William Chambers, another ’50s veteran, agrees. “They could do a pretty good job” sealing the border.

Edwards says: “When we start enforcing the law, these various businesses are, on their own, going to replace their [illegal] workforce with a legal workforce.”

While Congress debates building a fence on the border, these veterans say other actions should have higher priority.

1. End the current practice of taking captured Mexican aliens to the border and releasing them. Instead, deport them deep into Mexico, where return to the US would be more costly.

2. Crack down hard on employers who hire illegals. Without jobs, the aliens won’t come.

3. End “catch and release” for non-Mexican aliens. It is common for illegal migrants not from Mexico to be set free after their arrest if they promise to appear later before a judge. Few show up.

The Patrol veterans say enforcement could also be aided by a legalized guest- worker program that permits Mexicans to register in their country for temporary jobs in the US.  Eisenhower’s team ran such a program. It permitted up to 400,000 Mexicans a year to enter the US for various agriculture jobs that lasted for 12 to 52 weeks.

John Dillin is former managing editor of the Monitor


%d bloggers like this: